Author
Topic: Gun Rights (Read 102679 times)

To a lot of people who are otherwise politically inactive, whether or not a politician trusts the people to be armed is a major litmus test. Whether or not one really believes that politicians who want to disarm the population intend to impose a more authoritarian government afterwards, it's pretty much a prerequisite, historically speaking.

Armed with what, precisely? Is a population with hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns but not semi-auto assault rifles with 30 round clips not armed? Are they not disarmed already because they aren't allowed fully automatic weapons or their own tanks? The unwillingness of conservatives to answer this is what makes this discussion so silly to me. The second amendment doesn't hinge on the AR-15! Everybody (KJP aside) is really only arguing about moving the line to make one class of weapons illegal or not, but one side is pretending that it is an all or nothing battle royale over the right to bear arms.

To a lot of people who are otherwise politically inactive, whether or not a politician trusts the people to be armed is a major litmus test. Whether or not one really believes that politicians who want to disarm the population intend to impose a more authoritarian government afterwards, it's pretty much a prerequisite, historically speaking.

Armed with what, precisely? Is a population with hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns but not semi-auto assault rifles with 30 round clips not armed? Are they not disarmed already because they aren't allowed fully automatic weapons or their own tanks? The unwillingness of conservatives to answer this is what makes this discussion so silly to me. The second amendment doesn't hinge on the AR-15! Everybody (KJP aside) is really only arguing about moving the line to make one class of weapons illegal or not, but one side is pretending that it is an all or nothing battle royale over the right to bear arms.

First, many of us gun rights supporters strongly believe that most of the partisans pushing gun control feel more like KJP than you.

Second, even just within the category of "assault rifles," why should they be forbidden to civilians, even if there were no Second Amendment? You have a far greater chance of dying in a car crash--or even from just about any other type of firearm--than from an assault rifle. They are not uniquely dangerous or difficult to control the way a land mine (or an atom bomb) would be. "You don't need them" is not a valid reason; that goes to what I said a page ago about putting the onus diametrically opposite where it should be. Those who want to outlaw something need to make the case for outlawing it; if you start from the premise that everything is forbidden until the government allows it, then we're simply never going to find common ground.

First, many of us gun rights supporters strongly believe that most of the partisans pushing gun control feel more like KJP than you.

This viewpoint gained a massive amount of credibility due to the NY law capping magazine sizes at seven. It made the vast majority of handguns effectively illegal and it's very hard to believe this wasn't intentional. It's a lot like if Bloomberg banned the sale of pop in containers greater than 11 ounces, knowing full well the normal container size is 12.

Logged

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. P. J. O'Rourke

Again, you guys are muddling federal level and state level regulations. I suppose this is one of those situations where you don't find appealing that dirty little whore we call "States' Rights" lifting up her skirt?

Second, even just within the category of "assault rifles," why should they be forbidden to civilians, even if there were no Second Amendment? You have a far greater chance of dying in a car crash--or even from just about any other type of firearm--than from an assault rifle. They are not uniquely dangerous or difficult to control the way a land mine (or an atom bomb) would be. "You don't need them" is not a valid reason; that goes to what I said a page ago about putting the onus diametrically opposite where it should be. Those who want to outlaw something need to make the case for outlawing it; if you start from the premise that everything is forbidden until the government allows it, then we're simply never going to find common ground.

(a) they are not necessary for the purposes of the Second Amendment. You would still be allowed to own a gun and carry a gun pretty much wherever you go..... even into a bar where people are getting sloppy drunk or a city park where children are playing here in Ohio.

(b) recent history has provided the impetus for further regulation of assault rifles and extended clips. Let's take a look -

VaTech (4/07) - (32 killed, 17 wounded) - GLOCK 19 9mm semiautomatic pistol and Walther P22 .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol. Investigators found a total of 17 empty magazines at the scene of the shooting, a mix of several 15-round, and 10-round magazines loaded with hollow-point rounds (bullets with the tip hollowed out, designed to expand upon impact).

To a lot of people who are otherwise politically inactive, whether or not a politician trusts the people to be armed is a major litmus test. Whether or not one really believes that politicians who want to disarm the population intend to impose a more authoritarian government afterwards, it's pretty much a prerequisite, historically speaking.

Armed with what, precisely? Is a population with hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns but not semi-auto assault rifles with 30 round clips not armed? Are they not disarmed already because they aren't allowed fully automatic weapons or their own tanks? The unwillingness of conservatives to answer this is what makes this discussion so silly to me. The second amendment doesn't hinge on the AR-15! Everybody (KJP aside) is really only arguing about moving the line to make one class of weapons illegal or not, but one side is pretending that it is an all or nothing battle royale over the right to bear arms.

First, many of us gun rights supporters strongly believe that most of the partisans pushing gun control feel more like KJP than you.

Second, even just within the category of "assault rifles," why should they be forbidden to civilians, even if there were no Second Amendment? You have a far greater chance of dying in a car crash--or even from just about any other type of firearm--than from an assault rifle. They are not uniquely dangerous or difficult to control the way a land mine (or an atom bomb) would be. "You don't need them" is not a valid reason; that goes to what I said a page ago about putting the onus diametrically opposite where it should be. Those who want to outlaw something need to make the case for outlawing it; if you start from the premise that everything is forbidden until the government allows it, then we're simply never going to find common ground.

I don't start with the assumption that they should be illegal by default. I could go either way on the issue, though I'm falling more and more to the "ban them" side. I think good policy regarding assault rifles comes from a careful look at their value to law abiding citizens versus their social costs.

What is their value to law abiding citizens? I would assume that it derives from the protection provided by their superior firepower versus other types of legal weapons, but I'm having a hard time imagining plausible scenarios where a law abiding person needs that much firepower. The whole "right to rebellion" argument doesn't fit my definition of "law abiding person", I am having a hard time thinking of plausible "survivalist" scenarios, and the criminals that nearly anyone are likely to need to fend off really aren't like soldiers who will stick around against armed resistance, so I don't think most home defense scenarios really benefit from the extra firepower. I could see ranchers on the Mexican borders needing the heavy firepower to fend off drug cartels or coyotes who expect to be able to cross their property.

As to costs, they are a quite a bit more obvious of late. We've frequently seen how assault weapons (and indeed semi-auto pistols) can be used to inflict large numbers of casualties in short amounts of time over the past several years. Handguns cause more total deaths, no doubt, but that doesn't make the deaths caused by assault weapons irrelevant.

I expect that as soon as the gun control lobby succeeds in getting assault rifles banned following the shooting at Sandy Hook, then and only then will they suddenly remember that the the assault rifle that was stolen from the mother was not actually used by the shooter (so then the issue will suddenly pivot towards banning handguns as well, since those were the ones actually used).

You cherry pick a handful of incidents nationwide spanning well over a decade. I don't believe that an assault weapons ban would have stopped any of those shootings (note that some of them occurred while the former AWB was in place), but I also don't believe that those who do believe that such a ban would have prevented the shootings are going to rest at banning assault rifles. They may feign ignorance because they see assault rifles as low-hanging fruit, but ordinary handguns are the ones most often used in gun crimes, so it's ordinary handguns that those who believe that banning guns reduces crime are really after. There is no other logical assumption.

Again, you guys are muddling federal level and state level regulations. I suppose this is one of those situations where you don't find appealing that dirty little whore we call "States' Rights" lifting up her skirt?

I would actually be comfortable with a greater emphasis on states' rights in gun laws. That might have allowed Chicago's gun ban to remain in place (assuming that the Illinois Supreme Court would have upheld the ban under the Illinois constitution), while at the same time restricting further gun control efforts at the federal level.

Of course, the right to keep and bear arms is protected in the Ohio constitution as well:

Quote

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

I expect that as soon as the gun control lobby succeeds in getting assault rifles banned following the shooting at Sandy Hook, then and only then will they suddenly remember that the the assault rifle that was stolen from the mother was not actually used by the shooter (so then the issue will suddenly pivot towards banning handguns as well, since those were the ones actually used).

Sorry, but the gun control lobby is not as well organized (or unified) as your theory suggests. As for the weapon actually used by the shooter, I am having trouble finding a source which doesn't start its dialogue on the subject with "the mainstream media......" I had read some joy-filled comments about how the rifle was not even brought inside the school. But then there is the Conn. State Police report issued to clarify the confusions which states that it was the shotgun which was left in the trunk. The rifle I described above was found inside the school.... unless the police are part of the conspiracy. Three guns were found inside the school - the bushmaster assault rifle with 30 round clip, a glock handgun, and a 9mm handgun.

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.

All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.

"It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.

.............................

"There's no doubt that the rifle was used solely to kill 26 people in that school," Vance said.

It's actually kind of said that you have to sift through pages and pages of "AmericanPatriot".... "FreedomForPatriots"...... "PatriotWire"..... type websites just to find something which has some semblence of credibility on this issue. Google really needs to do something about that.

BTW, the handgun was used once inside the school...... Lanza spared himself of the rifle and used the handgun to take his own life.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 11:51:16 AM by Hts121 »

Logged

Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down. Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

...I expect that as soon as the gun control lobby succeeds in getting assault rifles banned following the shooting at Sandy Hook, then and only then will they suddenly remember that the the assault rifle that was stolen from the mother was not actually used by the shooter (so then the issue will suddenly pivot towards banning handguns as well, since those were the ones actually used)....

Sounds good to me.

I noticed that you don't have a defense for the Ohio gop ignoring the wishes of law enforcement as I had iterated on the previous page. "Change the subject"

Hah! The "standing army" language in that provision is a bit duplicative, too, since among the federal Constitution's list of the powers that states gave up to the federal government is this:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ..."

So I guess all the Ohio constitution does is establish that Ohio's government cannot do it even if Congress *did* give its consent. So Michigan need not fear invasion from Buckeye stormtroopers.

OK, remember this is UO, so I'm going to have to ask which rail transit system they're using.

Can you even be sure it's rail? I had assumed that it was probably in Columbus, so assumed it was a bus, given the likelihood that they were riding a rail system in Columbus ...

The windows look too far apart to be a bus, but I can see that you have to step down to get off which makes it more likely to be a bus. Maybe it's one of those old COTA buses from the '70s where the windows were really far apart. Especially with the wood paneling in the back.

Hah! The "standing army" language in that provision is a bit duplicative, too, since among the federal Constitution's list of the powers that states gave up to the federal government is this:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ..."

So I guess all the Ohio constitution does is establish that Ohio's government cannot do it even if Congress *did* give its consent. So Michigan need not fear invasion from Buckeye stormtroopers.

OK, remember this is UO, so I'm going to have to ask which rail transit system they're using.

Can you even be sure it's rail? I had assumed that it was probably in Columbus, so assumed it was a bus, given the likelihood that they were riding a rail system in Columbus ...

The windows look too far apart to be a bus, but I can see that you have to step down to get off which makes it more likely to be a bus. Maybe it's one of those old COTA buses from the '70s where the windows were really far apart. Especially with the wood paneling in the back.

Hey, did anyone go to the "Breakfast With Bullets" meeting at the Perkins Pancake House oops, my mistake, they're now called Family Restaurants--in Painesville? (free refills included?) Why, oh why do these stories always seem to come out of Ohio? (even though the article points out that there are organizations like this even in--gasp!--Manhattan!) And is there anyone here in a women's shooting league?

“If you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.....

Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote....

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence–they deserve a simple vote."

Well played strategy. Can anyone argue with that? He was talking to both sides of the aisle..... but probably moreso to Democrats who fear repurcussions in 2014. Holding a vote is not too much to ask, is it? It's what we pay Congress to do.

Logged

Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down. Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

a) he never said "he was moving ahead with executive orders regardless". The line was "if Congress doesn't act, I will". That's fairly plain English, but for further clarification, it was an urging for Congress to enact legislation and an announcement that, short of such action, he would exercise executive powers. There was no "regardless"..... although I'm sure it was spun that way.

b) more on point for this thread, he wasn't even talking about gun control. That line came up during his discussion of climate change. He does hold significant executive discretion under existing law to enact regulations intended to protect the environment. Romney didn't win. The EPA is still here.

Logged

Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down. Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

“If you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.....

Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote....

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence–they deserve a simple vote."

Well played strategy. Can anyone argue with that? He was talking to both sides of the aisle..... but probably moreso to Democrats who fear repurcussions in 2014. Holding a vote is not too much to ask, is it? It's what we pay Congress to do.

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

-The United States Supreme Court, WV State Board of Education v Barnette, 1943

Logged

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. P. J. O'Rourke

^Under that line of thinking, there could never be a vote of Congress on any limits of "arms" a citizen may own. Which would mean that Congress has no right to prevent me from buying and owning a nuclear ballistic submarine...... or an uzi. Similarly, as applied to the other amendments, Congress has no right to stop me from screaming "fire" in a movie theatre or "bomb" on an airplane or sacraficing a lamb in the exercise of my religion.

Ironically, the specific holding of the supreme court case you cite is often lambasted by conservatives. It held that schools could not require children to say the pledge of allegiance or salute the flag.

Logged

Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down. Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

-The United States Supreme Court, WV State Board of Education v Barnette, 1943

^ I wish that sort of logic was adhered to by our leaders before Prohibition. And in relation to other facets of our lives.

But really, so much debate continues along like the Constitution is a holy book that cannot be re-written. Well it isn't written in stone. There's certainly an amendment process available where there is popular will to do so. The above quote by Justice Jackson is not really correct here; fundamental rights can certainly be subjected to a vote.

But most people recognize you don't need an amendment to enact reasonable regulations aimed at gun control. The 2nd Amendment itself explicitly includes the word "regulated." The argument that you can't limit gun ownership at all is equivalent to the argument that the police can never search and seize a person. The 4th amendment contains the word "unreasonable" and it is not thought to be superflous. And ANY law can reasonably infringe upon fundamental rights so long as it passes strict scrutiny after judicial review. This is how we have placed reasonable limitations on many amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Logged

Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down. Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

But most people recognize you don't need an amendment to enact reasonable regulations aimed at gun control. The 2nd Amendment itself explicitly includes the word "regulated." The argument that you can't limit gun ownership at all is equivalent to the argument that the police can never search and seize a person. The 4th amendment contains the word "unreasonable" and it is not thought to be superflous. And ANY law can reasonably infringe upon fundamental rights so long as it passes strict scrutiny after judicial review. This is how we have placed reasonable limitations on many amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The fact that the Second Amendment contains the word "regulated" means very little; that word appears in the prefatory clause, not the imperative one, and was not meant to limit the establishment of the right. And the word "unreasonable" does not appear in the Second as it does in the Fourth.

If you want an example of language that gives Congress much broader latitude to regulate an otherwise fundamental right, one can turn to the almost-forgotten Third Amendment: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." The Second was not worded with such a broad escape hatch ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but in a manner to be prescribed by law").

It's true that Congress can burden even a fundamental right upon a showing of (a) a compelling government interest in the goal of the policy and (b) a showing that no less burdensome means would achieve that interest. Constitutional law in this area is definitely murky. After all, one of the quintessential items that the Courts have allowed to achieve the status of "compelling government interest" is racial diversity in schools (this was necessary in order to uphold affirmative action, as it would otherwise be unconstitutional racial discrimination). Arguably, if that qualifies as a compelling government interest, then just about everything does, particularly core government imperatives such as national defense and public safety. However, the courts have generally not gone in that direction and there is no set of standards or analytical steps that specifically states how courts weigh what a compelling government interest is. Unfortunately, the real-world answer is you've basically got to sue and make your argument to the court and see what happens.

The second half of the test is the narrowly-tailored/no-less-burdensome-means element. If this were to be litigated in court, this is where opponents would have a chance to argue that not only is a sweeping ban on firearms and ammunition not narrowly tailored, but it would also not actually achieve the state's interest in public safety at all, compelling or otherwise.

Eggsactly the question I want Congress to debate and VOTE on. The Supreme Court will not issue an advisory opinion. They need an actual law and challenge to it under the 2nd Amendment to take up the issue themselves.

Where would you draw the line? You do recognize that the 2nd Amendment has its limits, right? Be specific..... don't dance around the question with what if's and could be's.

IMO, the line should be drawn at weapons reasonable for self-defense. Private ownership of handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. is within the contemplation of "arms" under the 2nd Amendment. Uzis, rocket propelled grenades, 100 bullet extendable clips, flamethrowers, biochemical weapons, nuclear arms, tanks, napolm, vaporizors, and death stars all go beyond what I consider reasonable for purposes of self-defense. I also think that limits on where you can carry a gun are perfectly reasonable, so long as these laws do not prevent you from carrying a gun in your home or car. A city should be able to ban guns in parks where children play. An airport should be able to ban guns beyond a certain security checkpoint. Courts should be able to ban carrying a gun into the courthouse. The White House should be able to prohibit tourists from touring the west-wing with their desert eagle .45 strapped to their leg. And you certainly better never bring a gun into my house where my children play, eat and sleep. These are all reasonable limits on your 2nd Amendment rights.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 03:39:33 PM by Hts121 »

Logged

Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down. Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."